Companies surrender to terrorists over The Interview.

[Borgholio]

Well...looks like North Korea just went totally offline. Now we just wait and see what happens...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014 ... /20766995/

[Lagmonster]

Wonder if Anonymous made good on their threat. Probably not; outside observers were saying that despite probable attempts, they'd basically failed to achieve anything. If it's true, could be defensive as well. You can't hack into what isn't online, I'd guess.

[TheHammer]

No, they're not or they would already have done it. If they believed their bullshit, they already would have ordered an attack on South Korea raining down "nuclear hellfire" on their enemies.

Sure, much of their blustering is just that...propaganda. But they have always portrayed themselves as the victims, about how the evil United States is collaborating with the traitors in Seoul to destroy the country. They have launched artillery attacks and torpedoed SK warships to prove that they can "fight back" successfully to their population. But what if they genuinely came under attack? What if we launched our own cyber attack or lobbed a few cruise missiles their way? Then they could use that to prove what they're saying is true and have an excuse to act out even more.

The alternative if you do nothing is that they certainly WILL act out more, having been emboldened by your show of weakness. Now that Sony and Paramount bowed to their pressure, you can bet your ass they will try it again - Unless the US government retaliates in such a way that they realize the costs of such actions.

[Borgholio]

Unless the US government retaliates in such a way that they realize the costs of such actions.

Such as knocking the entire country offline...maybe?

[General Zod]

Maybe it's China deciding to give North Korea a spanking for stepping out of line?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, what can you realistically do about North Korea? What asre the options that just won't make them angrier?

At the moment, my point is simply that we shouldn't not care. Saying "oh, that's just those wacky people from the Kim Dynasty who like to leave dead rabbits on our doorstep, haha aren't they a hoot?" isn't a good idea.

I'm not saying "BOMB THEM" or anything specific, I'm saying that it's bluntly stupid and arrogant to dismiss their actions as irrelevant. Or to pretend there is no need to be upset when they make death threats that cause a movie to be effectively censored for portraying them badly.

It's like, if the US did this to a movie in France, the French government would be well justified in taking steps to resist. The fact that North Korea is weaker doesn't make it more acceptable for them to use death threats to silence artists.

[Ziggy Stardust]

How hard could it be to take all of North Korea off-line, anyway? Just call them on the phone, and their modems won't be able to log-on.

[Alferd Packer]

It's actually about that easy. Supposedly APNIC only ever allocated a block of 1024 IP addresses to the entire country.

To put that in perspective, I personally am responsible 127 public IP addresses at work.

[Broomstick]

They aren't crazy. They simply want to appear that way. These aren't religious extremists who might actually believe the crazy things they say.

Incorrect.

I do, in fact, think that the average North Korean has been fed such bullshit from an early age that they are indeed "religious extremists" with the Dear/Whatever Leader as their God-King. The acts of political devotion look suspiciously like religious rituals. I think a lot of the North Koreans actually do believe the bullshit. Why wouldn't they? What other information have they ever had access to?

Because the religion has communist/political trappings it isn't always recognized as such.

Now, do the elite, inner circle believe it? Probably not. That doesn't mean they don't hold the reins on the rest of the populace. They have a lot of potential cannon fodder, and since I don't think they give a fuck about the average citizen moves that kill tens of thousands may not be as unthinkable to them as we would like.

You don't give in to bullies when they try to push you around. You thump them appropriately. And if they don't learn their lesson the first time, you thump them harder the next.

Well, sure, but it's not like we're "thumping" the rest of the world's bullies, either.

I think it's pretty clear that airstrikes don't really do much to stop these sorts of bullies. No one wants to commit boots on the ground. Most of all, no one wants the sort of curb-stomp battle that will really put an end to these sorts of bullies because that means killing innocents. The last time war really made for a change in "bully" governments was WWII - I don't think anyone wants to go back to that sort of fighting. Well, no one sane. I could name a few deranged-sounding pissant nations/organizations (like North Korea and ISIL) who seem to want that. The long term danger is that is a way isn't found to effectively contain the more expansive of such groups they'll become a real threat to major powers.

[The Romulan Republic]

As long as China and Russia didn't take North Korea's side a war with them presumably wouldn't be as destructive as World War II. But it would still be the worst war we've fought in a long time. Perhaps the worst since World War II.

Edit: After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the opposition to them, I doubt their's the will for that kind of war short of the deaths of Americans/an invasion of America or an ally.

[mr friendly guy]

According to TYT some hacker group has claimed responsibility and their link to the announcement leads to a troll site. Could be true. I have read elsewhere that a lot of "cyber experts" don't think NK could pull it off. One of the things mentioned, is that the hackers only started talking about the interview after a NK was suggested as a possibility in news sites. Have no idea if this is true.

[CaptHawkeye]

The alternative if you do nothing is that they certainly WILL act out more, having been emboldened by your show of weakness. Now that Sony and Paramount bowed to their pressure, you can bet your ass they will try it again - Unless the US government retaliates in such a way that they realize the costs of such actions.

Congratulations, you've caught up with 1909.

[TheHammer]

They aren't crazy. They simply want to appear that way. These aren't religious extremists who might actually believe the crazy things they say.

Incorrect.

I do, in fact, think that the average North Korean has been fed such bullshit from an early age that they are indeed "religious extremists" with the Dear/Whatever Leader as their God-King. The acts of political devotion look suspiciously like religious rituals. I think a lot of the North Koreans actually do believe the bullshit. Why wouldn't they? What other information have they ever had access to?


Because the religion has communist/political trappings it isn't always recognized as such.

Now, do the elite, inner circle believe it? Probably not. That doesn't mean they don't hold the reins on the rest of the populace. They have a lot of potential cannon fodder, and since I don't think they give a fuck about the average citizen moves that kill tens of thousands may not be as unthinkable to them as we would like.

Well you hit the nail on the head. the average North Korean might well believe the bullshit, but the people pulling the strings and access to the buttons almost certainly don't. Those are the folks who've seen behind the curtain. They go along with it because it is to their benefit to do so, not because they fear being smited by their god.

Those are the folks who have significantly more to lose by provoking an enemy they can not defeat, and no promise of 72 virgins awaiting them in paradise should they die for glorious Dear Leader. And while they probably don't care about the average citizen (as evidenced by the fact that the average citizen lives in such poor conditions), they do care about their own personal comfort and assets and the US is getting better and better at precision targeting those assets both militarily and economically.

You don't give in to bullies when they try to push you around. You thump them appropriately. And if they don't learn their lesson the first time, you thump them harder the next.

Well, sure, but it's not like we're "thumping" the rest of the world's bullies, either.

I think it's pretty clear that airstrikes don't really do much to stop these sorts of bullies. No one wants to commit boots on the ground. Most of all, no one wants the sort of curb-stomp battle that will really put an end to these sorts of bullies because that means killing innocents. The last time war really made for a change in "bully" governments was WWII - I don't think anyone wants to go back to that sort of fighting. Well, no one sane. I could name a few deranged-sounding pissant nations/organizations (like North Korea and ISIL) who seem to want that. The long term danger is that is a way isn't found to effectively contain the more expansive of such groups they'll become a real threat to major powers.

We thump the bullies that threaten our interests - whether it be economic or military. This isn't about playing the moral high ground, its about ensuring that any nation willing to engage us in some form or fashion is going to feel significant pain for having done so. Punishment, as I might characterize it, will not deter all offenders, but it is still a significant deterrent.

Depending on the offense, you don't necessarily need to do anything too over the top. You give them a little taste of what you have in store, make it clear that there is plenty more where that came from and that the next helping is going to be ten fold. And if they're dumb enough to try and "call your bluff", then you make an example of them.

The alternative if you do nothing is that they certainly WILL act out more, having been emboldened by your show of weakness. Now that Sony and Paramount bowed to their pressure, you can bet your ass they will try it again - Unless the US government retaliates in such a way that they realize the costs of such actions.

Congratulations, you've caught up with 1909.

Was that supposed to be some sort of clever retort?

[Borgholio]

Looks like the bad PR got to them. Sony is releasing The Interview on Christmas Day.

http://gizmodo.com/sony-pictures-will-s ... 1674536006

[TheHammer]

Looks like the bad PR got to them. Sony is releasing The Interview on Christmas Day.

http://gizmodo.com/sony-pictures-will-s ... 1674536006

Never underestimate the power of shame

[CaptHawkeye]

Was that supposed to be some sort of clever retort?

Maybe if your head wasn't jammed so far up your ass you would understand me better. S'ok, i'll make this easy.

In what fantasy land did you come from where war, violence, and threats ever solved a single problem. If fear and violence actually solved problems, don't you think humanity would have run out of problems thousands of fucking years ago?

Clever enough for you?

[Rogue 9]

Was that supposed to be some sort of clever retort?

Maybe if your head wasn't jammed so far up your ass you would understand me better. S'ok, i'll make this easy.

In what fantasy land did you come from where war, violence, and threats ever solved a single problem. If fear and violence actually solved problems, don't you think humanity would have run out of problems thousands of fucking years ago?

Clever enough for you?

Violence solved the Nazis and chattel slavery in the United States, just to name a couple of prominent examples from recent history, so the thesis that violence never solves anything is flatly untrue on its face.

[Broomstick]

How many people died to fix the Nazi problem?

How many people died during the US Civil War?

How many people do you want to die over this issue? You do understand that people, as individuals, are typically reluctant to die? How much do you know of WWII? It makes any alleged atrocities of recent wars look pretty lame. At this point in time, how many cities are you willing to (literally) burn?

[CaptHawkeye]

Violence solved the Nazis and chattel slavery in the United States, just to name a couple of prominent examples from recent history, so the thesis that violence never solves anything is flatly untrue on its face.

I guess you're from the same land as Hammer because you seem to think that since violence was used in those cases, it must have been the only or best option. Never mind how preventable both wars were at critical junctures, but ya'know. It's not as if i'm trying to make a point about war being a result of leaders and people dropping the ball.

So let me ask you, is your moral compass is so fucked that you honestly believe violence is a good or even preferable option to solve problems? Or at least the problems of people too poor to profit from it. Like 99.9% of the world's population.

[Lagmonster]

Violence solved the Nazis and chattel slavery in the United States, just to name a couple of prominent examples from recent history, so the thesis that violence never solves anything is flatly untrue on its face.

I guess you're from the same land as Hammer because you seem to think that since violence was used in those cases, it must have been the only or best option.

He didn't say that violence was the preferable choice. He only argued that it was a successful choice. You're welcome to challenge this claim, but don't make the mistake of messing up discussions with things you've just made up.

[Rogue 9]

Violence solved the Nazis and chattel slavery in the United States, just to name a couple of prominent examples from recent history, so the thesis that violence never solves anything is flatly untrue on its face.

I guess you're from the same land as Hammer because you seem to think that since violence was used in those cases, it must have been the only or best option. Never mind how preventable both wars were at critical junctures, but ya'know. It's not as if i'm trying to make a point about war being a result of leaders and people dropping the ball.

So let me ask you, is your moral compass is so fucked that you honestly believe violence is a good or even preferable option to solve problems? Or at least the problems of people too poor to profit from it. Like 99.9% of the world's population.

I can't speak for the Second World War except to note that once Hitler was in power, appeasing his demands and hoping he wouldn't demand more was clearly not working. It would have been far better to not impoverish Germany with war reparations leading to his rise in the first place, but I'm not a scholar of the war, so there may be other missed opportunities (not involving simply letting the Nazis have what they wanted, which is a non-starter) I'm unaware of. But you cannot possibly argue with a straight face that violence didn't solve the problem, which is all I said.

But the American Civil War was completely unavoidable, bar, again, simply letting the Slave Power have what it wanted (a strategy tried for a couple of decades before the outbreak of the war), or somehow replacing them with different people who were not chomping at the bit to destroy their country and follow that up with conquering Central America and a couple hundred years of enslaving black people. The planters of the South had no intention of ever giving up slavery without being forced to; I can refer you to any amount of documentation of this fact that you may require. Yes, a lot of people died, and that's deplorable, but the alternative was far worse. And again, violence indisputably did solve the problem.

Police violence is a hot topic of late (for obvious and just reasons), but the lawful capacity of the police to do violence solves a lot of problems - if all the police could do to criminals was ask them to pretty please stop what they're doing and come with them, and couldn't follow that up with enforcement action (i.e. violence, albeit what should be carefully regulated and much preferably nonlethal violence) they wouldn't be very effective at restraining crime.

Furthermore, from the perspective of North Korea and it's hackers, at least, the threat of violence did solve a problem here, at least until Sony was pressured into reversing its decision. They threatened to blow up movie theaters that show The Interview, and the major theater chains are therefore not going to show a movie making fun of the Great Successor, which they saw as a problem. Mission fucking accomplished.

I do not like violence. I do not want violence. A violent solution is never preferable to a non-violent solution when one exists (but sometimes it simply doesn't). But I'm not so goddamned stupid as to believe that violence doesn't influence anything, and as long as it has influence it can be used to affect change - and solve problems. This becomes even more true when you realize that what does and does not constitute a problem is relative - the Taliban saw the statues of Buddha at Bamiyan as a problem, so they solved it. With violence. If a person's ideology includes "X person/group is not pushing up daisies, and that's a problem" (and such people and groups do indisputably exist) then for them violence is the only practical solution to their perceived problem - asking their enemies to pretty please kill themselves is unlikely to succeed, after all. Conversely, said enemies likely view being killed as a problem.

In closing, I never said violence was "best," "good," or "preferable," so take your strawman and fuck right off.

[TheHammer]

Was that supposed to be some sort of clever retort?

Maybe if your head wasn't jammed so far up your ass you would understand me better. S'ok, i'll make this easy.

In what fantasy land did you come from where war, violence, and threats ever solved a single problem. If fear and violence actually solved problems, don't you think humanity would have run out of problems thousands of fucking years ago?

Clever enough for you?

Rogue 9 has already done an excellent job of showing why you're an idiot, but I'll throw in a couple of additional points for emphasis.

First and foremost, I didn't say it had to come to violence. It depends upon the offense. Hacking a movie company doesn't warrant lobbing cruise missiles. But you still have to respond in a firm manner, and in such a way that the regime who perpetrated the act feels pain (economic, technological etc) for having done so. Failing to do so will only ensure that the next time they try something bigger.

And secondly, I think you're the one who is living in a fantasy land. I'm sorry we don't live in a utopia where everyone "just gets along" and has the best interests of all mankind at heart. However, human nature tends to show that there are a great many of us that we will do as much to benefit ourselves as we can get away with. The reality is that a strong military, and a demonstrated willingness to use that military are a great deterrent to wars actually taking place. And demonstrated weakness in those areas has had the historical effect of encouraging dictators and expansionist regimes from "taking more" until they're finally stopped by a resolved enemy.

[Simon_Jester]

Hell, even in situations where everybody does want everybody else to do well, and we're all on the same side, it is still vital to have a concept of boundaries. Even with good intentions people transgress against each other. Cooperation breaks down unless we define boundaries, enforce them firmly, and are prepared to respond to a serious transgression with negative consequences.

Infinite forgiveness and zero self-assertiveness is not a recipe for success even in a friendly environment.

That only becomes more important when dealing with people who, given their choice, would prefer not to cooperate.

[Broomstick]

Meanwhile, back in the US...

Apparently, all the independent movie theaters that are showing the movie tomorrow have sold out. Sony is now making the movie available on demand at YouTube Movies, Google Play, Xbox Video, and seetheinterview.com. Seems the average American may have more of a backbone than the average corporation.

The irony here is that movie may now do better than it otherwise would. For darn sure more people will see it now than before all the histrionics.

Also, the news tonight reported that North Korea has had something like 7 internet outages now. The talking head mumbled about it being such a minimal internet almost any hacker could do this... apparently a bunch of them are.

[Adam Reynolds]

The irony here is that movie may now do better than it otherwise would. For darn sure more people will see it now than before all the histrionics.

On some level this almost seems like an absurd marketing ploy, Sony making the best of a bad situation. The movie currently has a 9.7 on IMDB but a 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. It's your patriotic duty as an American to see the film that isn't actually very good. Six months from now no one will actually care about it.

It's not like Sony or the theater chains would have pulled the movie if it were up for an Oscar or could be expected to make a few hundred million at the box office. There was a mass shooting at a showing of The Dark Knight Rises* and it never stopped theaters from showing it or people from showing up. There is a reason Hollywood is called show business rather than an art.
*Which went on to make $448 million domestically, though losing to The Dark Knight by nearly $87 million.


As to North Korea potentially not being behind it, Bruce Schneier for one, isn't convinced it's them. He makes several interesting points: Everyone involved has an incentive to call it North Korea regardless of who actually did it. The US government is trying to limit the proliferation of cyber warfare and Sony is trying to limit its liability in several pending lawsuits. This is in addition to the problem that the FBI is claiming classified evidence, in much the same fashion as in 2003 against Iraq. Besides this, Sony has long been a target of hackers and the connection to The Interview only happened after the initial hacks and the media response. If it were the North Korean government that would logically have been the first thing they targeted. He also points out that it probably wasn't an insider, given the nature of the attack. Amusingly North Korea has even offered to help with the investigation, though that doesn't really answer any questions as to whether they were involved.